There goes the 4th Amendment

[Kevin and 10]

Court says evidence is valid despite police error

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court said Wednesday that evidence obtained after illegal searches or arrests based on simple police mistakes may be used to prosecute criminal defendants.

The justices split 5-4 along ideological lines to apply new limits to the court's so-called exclusionary rule, which generally requires evidence to be suppressed if it results from a violation of a suspect's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches or seizure.

The conservative majority acknowledged that the arrest of Bennie Dean Herring of Alabama — based on the mistaken belief that there was a warrant for his arrest — violated his constitutional rights, yet upheld his conviction on federal drug and gun charges.

Coffee County, Ala., sheriff's deputies found amphetamines in Herring's pockets and an unloaded gun in his truck when they conducted a search following his arrest. It turned out that the warrant from neighboring Dale County had been recalled five months earlier, but the county sheriff's computers had not been updated.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court, said the evidence may be used "when police mistakes are the result of negligence such as that described here, rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements."

Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas sided with Roberts.

In a dissent for the other four justices, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the ruling "leaves Herring, and others like him, with no remedy for violations of their constitutional rights."

Ginsburg said accurate police record-keeping is of paramount importance, particularly with the widespread use of electronic databases. Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens also dissented.

Herring was arrested after a Coffee sheriff's employee asked her counterpart in Dale County whether Herring, called "no stranger to law enforcement" by Roberts, was wanted in Dale. An arrest warrant had been issued in Dale, but it had been recalled by July 2004.

The sheriff's electronic records, however, showed it was still a valid warrant.

Acting on that information, Coffee County deputies arrested and searched Herring.

The Dale employee meanwhile discovered the warrant was no longer valid and called Coffee County to say so. But it was too late for Herring.

Some courts have ruled that as a deterrent to police misconduct, the fruits of a similar search may be excluded from evidence.

But the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta said that suppressing evidence in Herring's case would be unlikely to deter sloppy record keeping.

The case is Herring v. U.S., 07-513.

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=172361

[mawilson 2,133]

That sucks.

[peejay 327]

This is a far cry from totally throwing out the 4th Amendment.

The cops are still prohibited from random searches. They won't be kicking in every front door on your street just because they want to look around on a fishing expedition.

[NickD 202]

Historically, those 5-4 decisions have been the most controversial. Why not make it at least 6-3 that would be 2/3's of the vote, but better yet, make it 9-0 or unanimous. Not dealing with facts anyway, just opinions, and we all know about opinions from reading this board. Another subject that disturbs me and considered writing my congressman about. What about a jury, can they hang a guy with a 11-1 vote? Doesn't make any sense and that is the major problem with this country, too many things do not make sense. Wasn't that way in the beginning.

[peejay 327]

What about a jury, can they hang a guy with a 11-1 vote?

No, that is known as a hung jury in criminal cases. The judge sends the jurors back to work it out for a unanimous consensus and if that doesn't happen he declares a mistrial. The District Attorney can then decide if the state wishes to retry the case with a new jury.

Civil cases are different in that it does not take a unanimous vote to render a verdict if I'm not mistaken. It has been many years since I was chosen to serve on a civil jury and in that case we were unanimous.